Page Two, The Eilttov, October 15, 1976
TheEditorialPage
A Difference
In Possibilities
To the Hilltop editorial staff, the choice in this yearns
presidential election is clear.Though both the character and
the stands of Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford have often appear^-
ed rather ambiguous,we believe that the differences,especialr
ly between thier stands,is well drawn. In economics and do'^
mestic policy, Ford''s rhetoric is typically Republican. He
pays much more attention to inflation than unemployment,much
more attention to the efforts of the private sector than
the initiatives of government. Logically, he believes in the
trickle-down theory of economic well-being where tax breaks
given to corporations will have to someday benefit the com
mon laborer. Carter, on the other hand, represents the clas
sic Democratic view of much government action in alleviating
both inflation and \inemployment. Contrary to Ford, he seems
to have a sense of compassion for those out of work and is
determined to lessen their plight. The bastions of privi
lege would therefore have to be quite vulnerable in a
Carter administration.
In foreign policy, though the distinction is not as great,
there are still some differences, basically in the way for
eign policy is planned and administrated. Carter has called
the shuttle-diplomacy of Henry Kissinger, a "Lone Ranger"
type of approach, one which refuses to acknowledge the wis
dom of the American people or that of their allies. He pro
mises to personally conduct foreign policy out in the open
Cas opposed to Ford's use of Henry Kissinger,or vice-versa).
Carter also calls for a heightened sense of moral consist
ency in our foreign policy, especially in regard to human
dignity throughout the world. Ford runs on his record which
is as much Richard Nixon's and Henry Kissinger's as his. He
says we are at peace, but refuses to discuss the price we've
paid Cin respect at home and abroad) for that peace.
Perhaps the greatest difference, however, between the two
men lies in the possibilities they present for the future.
Ford, despite his campaign rhetoric will steer the coiintry
on the same course we have followed for the past eight
years—more vetoes, more secret arms deals with foreign pow
ers, more inaction on the economy. Carter, on the other hand,
will try to change the course of the country, restoring
trust—not by hollow speeches—but through decisive action
and genuine reform. In short, he will try to make government
work again—for the people.
The choice is clear to us. Will we be satisfied with to
day's reality or are we willing to help realize tomorrow's
possibilities? Will we continue to trust the cold voice of
the cynic or will we listen to the encouraging voice of the
idealist? Will we hold on to the heritage of distrust and
corruption or will we believe in the promise of something
clean and new? Finally, will we keep a caretaker president
or will we choose a leader . . . for a change? We choose
Jimmy Carter.'
The Hilltop invites responses to its editovials. Replies
should be addressed to Editorial Staff, Hilltop, and sent
through Post Office Box 1148^0. In addition, students, fac^
ulty OP administrative personnel who wish to respond to e-
vents relative to campus or to a national viewpoint should
ndd-'-^ss tT^ei^ r^sponsi. to. SsluCi - the Editor (feedlx^kj.
Hilltop and send thorough Post Office Box 1148~C also.
&
4tl(i
Anier;
we
Said th;
G.I
’coliec
specific
hi
‘otinance
"We 1
Rouble
the 1
hi.
ordec
Hov
We e
Senior Officer Moves
To Solve Class Apathy
"The
Jlay a ]
V
n^s.ng
’.'Ther.
'inc;
There is something new under the sun these days. Stud®'’’
participation in the activities of their class has reached
new plateau. Class activities, usually confined to a hand^
Jjl!'
of officers and "interested" students,have been anything
successful in encompassing total class awareness in the
. tV
Class meetings have usually been attended by only a few
majority of members do not attend the meetings. How to
students interested and involved in what is going on
their class has always been a major problem. Many timesf
tempts are made to increase class awareness of meeting^ .
posters and huge promotional campaigns. Sometimes they
oftentimes, they don't. A real dilemma, one would concltd®^
But dilemmas can be solved with a lot of thought and a
bit of planning. Such seems to be the case fol: the Seh
class,at least. George Hardin,president of the class,has
fered an innovative idea that just might solve class ap^^^'
Mr. Hardin has initiated the idea of a class newsletter. ^
newsletter, which tells of the occurances in recent
meetings, keeps all the members of the class informed aS
what is happening in respect to class activities.
For
students that have conflicting appointments at the time ^
class meetings are held, this newsletter allows them to
informed on what has happened in their absence. For
r.hat have no intention of attending a class meeting whe^*'.
there is a conflict in their schedule or not, at least ^
newsletter keeps them up-to-date on what plans and proj®
are underway by their class. Oftentimes,"information" is
key to apathy. Mr. Hardin's premise seems to be this, an5'
would look as if he (and his officers) just might have
an answer to uninformed, apathetic class members.
We find Mr.Hardin's idea viable,and one that other cis^^
might pursue in order to increase their own member's
ness. Indeed,there is something new under the sun these 3^^
r^ing,
^Ulcj
S al
A~it>on|
fete
r®tr^
II
'^Ity
C,